The Cartographers’ Guild is a forum created by and for map makers and aficionados, a place where every aspect of cartography can be admired, examined, learned, and discussed. Our membership consists of professional designers and artists, hobbyists, and amateurs—all are welcome to join and participate in the quest for cartographic skill and knowledge.

Although we specialize in maps of fictional realms, as commonly used in both novels and games (both tabletop and role-playing), many Guild members are also proficient in historical and contemporary maps. Likewise, we specialize in computer-assisted cartography (such as with GIMP, Adobe apps, Campaign Cartographer, Dundjinni, etc.), although many members here also have interest in maps drafted by hand.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. You will have to register before you can post or view full size images in the forums.

A couple of notes. The scale bar is inappropriate as this map doesn't have a consistent scale. Although the small scale details show appropriate distortion for the projection, the large scale details do not. If you were to apply it to a globe, the continents would probably look OK, but the rivers and coastlines would be distorted. The rivers just look odd in their own right, on a map that looks to be fairly precise, they look highly stylized: being too wide, too, "ragged", and far, far, too short.

I'd have chosen a different projection that does a better job of representing shape or area, and drawn the rivers as simple lines instead.

It’s actually in equirectangular, but I stretched it slightly to fit into the same dimensions as my regional map. That’s probably very bad practice, but this map is just to depict where the physical features of the world are roughly.

Originally Posted by Hai-Etlik

The scale bar is inappropriate as this map doesn't have a consistent scale.

Should it not have a scale bar at all then?

Originally Posted by Hai-Etlik

Although the small scale details show appropriate distortion for the projection, the large scale details do not. If you were to apply it to a globe, the continents would probably look OK, but the rivers and coastlines would be distorted. The rivers just look odd in their own right, on a map that looks to be fairly precise, they look highly stylized: being too wide, too, "ragged", and far, far, too short.

That’s because they’re not rivers. They’re just big estuaries caused by a recent raise in sea level. I do intend to include the rivers, but it seems like a lot of effort right now.

Originally Posted by Hai-Etlik

I'd have chosen a different projection that does a better job of representing shape or area, and drawn the rivers as simple lines instead.

I agree that I should have chosen a better projection, but the regional maps will do that job hopefully. I will do the rivers when I have time. Importing the river images from Wilbur looks pretty terrible, so I’ll have to trace over each individual river I think. Arduous.

Any more constructive criticisms? I want to make this map as good as it can be, but I am not starting it from scratch in a different projection.

Yep, no scale bar. If it had been a straight Plate Carée, then scale would have been consistent for measurements along the equator, and along meridians. As you have a different scale factor for latitude and longitude they are not consistent with each other. All other distances are all over the place regardless. After all, the entire top and bottom edges of the map each represent a single point.

Originally Posted by laevex_esre

That’s because they’re not rivers. They’re just big estuaries caused by a recent raise in sea level. I do intend to include the rivers, but it seems like a lot of effort right now.

In that case they seem too long and the ragged edges are still odd. And they are still going to look distorted when you do your larger scale regional maps, at least those of them in higher latitudes.